scan_text_nodes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'scan' but doesn't clarify what 'scan' entails—e.g., whether it returns text content, metadata, or errors; if it's read-only or has side effects; or any performance considerations. This leaves behavioral traits largely undisclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the core action and target. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the scan returns (e.g., text content, node IDs, errors), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., depth of scanning, handling of nested nodes). For a tool with no structured output information, this leaves significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'nodeId' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what constitutes a valid node ID or how selection relates to it. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('scan') and target ('all text nodes in the selected Figma node'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scan_nodes_by_types' or 'get_node_info', which could also involve scanning or retrieving node information.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'scan_nodes_by_types' (which might filter by type) or 'get_node_info' (which might retrieve broader node details). It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.